Petitioners Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog are the children of Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal who died intestate in 1951 and 1961, respectively. They had an older brother, Gavino, but he died in 1935, predeceasing their parents. Private respondents Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog brought an action for partition and accounting aginst petitioners, claiming that they were the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and that, as such, they were entitled to the one-third share of Gavino in the estate of their grandpaprents. Petitoners denied this and alleged that their brother Gavino died single and without issue. Private respondents presented three witnesses: 1.) Trazo, then the mayor of their municipality, testified that he knew Gavino and Catalina to be married and Ramonito to be their first child. Furthermore, he said that he attended the wedding of Gavino and Catalina. 2.) Pogoy, a family friend of private respondents, testified that they are the children of Gavino and Catalina. He also said that he attended their wedding and that Gavino and Catalina lived together. 3.) Catalina, the alleged wife of Gavina, tesitified concerning her marriage with Gavino. She testified that after the wedding, she was handed a “receipt”, presumably the marriage certificate, by Fr. Jomao-as, but it was burned during the war. She said that they lived together and begot three children, namely, Ramonito, Petronillo, and Generoso. Petronillo died after an illness at the age of six. On cross-examination, she stated that after the death of Gavino, she lived in common law relation with a man for a year and then they separated. Private respondents furthermore produced various certificates from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar, the Office of the Treasurer, and the Parish Priest of Asturias Municipality that the records of the marriage of Gavino and Catalina and the birth of Ramonito must be presumed to have been either lost or destroyed during the war. On the other hand, petitioners presented three witnesses: 1.) Leoncia testified that Gavino died single at the family residence and denied that her brother had any legitimate children and stated that she did not know private respondents before the case was filed. 2.) Maranga, the Assistant Municipal Treasurer, testified that there was no record of the marriage in the Book of Marriages between 1925 to 1935. 3.) Narvasa tesitified that Gavino died single in 1935 and that Catalina lived with a certain Keriado after the war, although he did not know whether they were legally married. He added, however, that Catalina had children by a man she had married before the war. On cross-examination, he stated that Leoncia, who requested him to testify, was also his bondsman in a criminal case.
Issue
Issue
Whether or not Gavino and Catalina were married and therefore private respondents, as their alleged heirs, are entitled to one-third share of Gavino in the estate of their grandparents?
Held
Held
Yes.
Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place ─ other evidence may be presented to prove marriage. Here, private respondents proved, through testimonial evidence, that Gavino and Catalina were married and they had three children, one of whom died in infancy; that their marriage subsisted until Gavino died; and that their children, private respondents herein, were recognized by Gavino’s family and by the public as the legitimate children of Gavino.
An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from the testimonies of the witnesses who state that a wedding took place, since the very purpose for having a wedding is to exchange vows of marital commitment. It would be unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows and quite unnatural for people not to notice its absence.
In accordance with Arts. 266 and 267, CC, in the absence of titles indicated in Art. 265, CC, which provides that such status shall be proven by record of birth in the Civil Register, by an authentic document, or by final judgment, the filiation of children may be proven by continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child and by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws.
Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place ─ other evidence may be presented to prove marriage. Here, private respondents proved, through testimonial evidence, that Gavino and Catalina were married and they had three children, one of whom died in infancy; that their marriage subsisted until Gavino died; and that their children, private respondents herein, were recognized by Gavino’s family and by the public as the legitimate children of Gavino.
An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from the testimonies of the witnesses who state that a wedding took place, since the very purpose for having a wedding is to exchange vows of marital commitment. It would be unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows and quite unnatural for people not to notice its absence.
In accordance with Arts. 266 and 267, CC, in the absence of titles indicated in Art. 265, CC, which provides that such status shall be proven by record of birth in the Civil Register, by an authentic document, or by final judgment, the filiation of children may be proven by continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child and by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws.